Attachment A

Amtrak On-Time Performance for FY 2010
Year-to-Date Totals through February

y Test 1: Test 2:
Indicates Higher Percent On Time Constant or
both YTD - February 2010 ys. YTD - February Better Effective
tests 2009 x Speed
were % Variance
met for Change | Proposed from ‘Change in MPH
OTP FY10 % from Target for FYIO from October 2007
Progress | _On Time FY09 FY10 Target Baseline
Northeast Corridor Service (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 95%)
Acela 81.0% | (4.1%) | 92.1% | (11.1%) (1.3)
Regional Service 75.1% (2.4%) 88.2% | (13.1%) (1.5)
Other Corridor Services (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 90%. Minimum target proposed for FY 2010: 80%)
Adirondack x 72.5% 10.3% 80.0% (7.5%) 2.5
Blue Water v 67.5% 26.9% 80.0% | (12.5%) 1.8
Capitols v 92.1% 0.5% 83.8% 8.3% 1.6
Carolinian 57.0% | (11.0%) | 80.0% | (23.0%) 2.0
Cascades ¥ 72.6% 5.2% 80.0% (7.4%) 0.7
Downeaster v 83.6% 20.9% 85.2% (1.6%) 0.1
Empire Service 86.6% 6.2% 82.7% 3.9% (0.9)
Ethan Allen Express 82.8% 26.3% 80.0% 2.8% (0.2)
Heartland Flyer v 90.7%, 16.6% 80.0% 10.7% 5.3
Hiawatha 90.3% 6.6% 89.7% 0.6% (0.1)
Hoosier State v 75.0% 32.8% 80.0% (5.0%) 19
Illini 45.4% | (20.5%) | 81.6% | (36.1%) (1.3)
Illinois Zephyr v 94.0% 13.5% 80.1% 13.9% 2.2
Keystone 83.6% | (3.9%) | 88.1% | (4.5%) (0.4)
Lincoln Service v 76.1% 14.7% 80.0% (3.9%) 2.4
Maple Leaf cA 79.5% 24.8% 80.0% | (0.5%) 2.0
Missouri Services v 93.0% 42.5% 80.0% 13.0% 7.0
Pacific Surfliner 80.7% (0.9%) 83.9% (3.2%) 0.2
Pennsylvanian . 90.7% (6.0%) 82.6% 8.1% 0.5
Pere Marquette v 56.7% 24.5% 80.0% | (23.3%) 24
Piedmont 83.4% | 6.7% | 83.7% | (0.3%) (0.8)
San Joaquins v 91.3% 3.6% 81.2% 10.2% 2.1
Vermonter 86.1% (1.0%) 80.0% 6.1% 0.1
Wolverines ¥ 69.3% 29.0% 80.0% | (10.7%) 2.2
Long Distance Trains (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 85%. Minimum target proposed for FY 2010: 72.5%)
Auto Train 85.8% (5.5%) 75.8% 9.9% 1d
California Zephyr v 59.7% 10.0% 72.5% | (12.8%) 46
Capitol Limited v 75.8% 16.5% 72.5% 3.3% 3.1
Cardinal v 65.4% 23.1% 72.5% (7.1%) 0.3
City of New Orleans 78.5% (0.4%) 85.0% (6.5%) (0.2)
Coast Starlight v 88.1% 13.0% 72.5% 15.6% 21
Crescent 71.2% (5.6%) 72.5% 4.7% 0.6
Empire Builder 76.6% 7.5% 80.4% (3.8%) (0.2)
Lake Shore Limited ¥ 83.9% 13.3% 72.5% H4% 41
Palmetto 68.8% (6.0%) 72.5% (3.7%) 3.7
Silver Meteor 70.9% | (11.8%) | 72.5% (1.6%) 14
Silver Star v 79.4% 7.5% 72.5% 6.9% 1.6
Southwest Chief v 87.4% 5.0% 75.1% 12.4% 0.7
Sunset Limited v 90.8% 21.8% 72.5% 18.3% 4.0
Texas Eagle v 77.5% 18.9% 72.5% 5.0% 21



@

U.S. Department Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad
Administration

MAR 3-0 2010

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman

Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Section 154 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117) requires the Federal Railroad
Administrator to “submit a quarterly report on April 1, 2010, and quarterly reports
thereafter, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing the
Administrator's efforts at improving the on-time performance of Amtrak intercity rail
service operating on non-Amtrak owned property. Such reports shall compare the most
recent actual on-time performance data to pre-established on-time performance goals that
the Administrator shall set for each rail service, identified by route. Such reports shall
also include whatever other information and data regarding the on-time performance of
Amtrak trains the Administrator deems to be appropriate.”

I am pleased to submit the report in accordance with this requirement. I hope that the
information contained in the enclosed report will assist the Committee in its work.

Identical letters have been sent to the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on
Appropriations.

Be
Joseph C. Szab

Enclosures


April 1, 2010

April 2010 Report on Amtrak On-Time Performance
Submitted by the Federal Railroad Administrator
Under Section 154 of Pub. L. 111-117
This report includes two sections: (1) an update on recent Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) efforts to catalyze improvements in Amtrak’s on-time performance (OTP); and (2) in
keeping with the FRA’s January 1, 2010 OTP report, an update on Amtrak OTP results and
performance against FRA-established goals.

(1) OTP Improvement Highlights through February Fiscal Year 2010

Southeast Corridor: In recent months, Amtrak has encountered mixed results from the Southeast
(1-95) Corridor Performance Improvement Plan, which the FRA required of Amtrak management
as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Grant Agreement between the FRA and Amtrak. In
December 2009, CSX reduced the average minutes of slow orders experienced by Amtrak trains
by 11 minutes; however, during the same period, freight train interference and other meet and
pass delays increased by an average of 12 minutes compared to the previous year. The Auto
Train, which had the highest endpoint OTP among Amtrak’s long-distance trains in FY 2009,
has an OTP in FY 2010 through February almost six percentage-points lower than the previous
year. Despite this decline in performance, the Auto Train remains among the top third of long
distance trains in terms of on-time arrivals. The Palmetto, Carolinian, and Silver Meteor have
also experienced year-over-year declines in their endpoint OTP through February FY 2010
(decreases of 6, 11, and 12 percentage points respectively); however, the Silver Star is just under
an on-time arrival percent of 80, which is a 7.5 percentage-point improvement over the previous
year.

Chicago-St. Louis Corridor: The Union Pacific (UP) Railroad and Amtrak continue to advance
the Performance Improvement Plan for the UP’s portion of the Chicago — St. Louis corridor.
The focus on the corridor has contributed to significant OTP improvements for Amtrak trains.
For example, the endpoint OTP for the Chicago — St. Louis Lincoln Service was 76.1 percent in
FY 2010 through February, which year-over-year, is a 15 percentage-point improvement. Recent
action items completed by UP to improve Amtrak performance on this corridor have included the
elimination of stop and flag orders due to rusty rail and the reduction of other slow orders along
the railroad. In upcoming months, UP plans to make improvements to the dispatching and
replace a rail line crossing on the corridor. Amtrak has also contributed to the performance
improvement on this route by reducing mechanical delays and improving the passenger boarding
procedures.

Other Recent OTP Developments: In 2010 Amtrak is incorporating its own ongoing route
improvement initiative into the collaborative Performance Improvement Plans, which will heighten
the focus of the performance improvement effort. Performance Improvement Plans developed in
2010 will focus on the five poorest-performing long-distance routes to identify and implement
changes where possible.

While Performance Improvement Plans between Amtrak and host freight railroads continue to
move forward, the advancement of identified action items across Amtrak’s network is expected


to accelerate upon implementation of the Section 207 Metrics and Standards under the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Amtrak and FRA developed and
published preliminary metrics and standards for Amtrak’s performance, which were released for
public comment, and have collaborated on a revised document that is awaiting final approval.
Publication will follow that approval.

(2) Goals and Route Performance

Attachment A contains updated OTP statistics for all Amtrak routes for FY 2010 through
February. As the attachment illustrates, slightly over half of the routes (23) have had
improvements in OTP (in terms of both improved percent on-time and no decrease in effective
speed) through February 2010. Of those routes experiencing OTP improvement, a total of 13
(six corridor-type and seven long-distance trains) are meeting, or are surpassing, their FRA-
defined OTP target for FY 2010.

The on-time performance across the entire Amtrak system through February of FY 2010 was
81.1 percent, an increase of 3.7 percentage points over the previous year. Amtrak’s short
distance routes outside the Northeast Corridor (i.e. “Other Corridor Services”) experienced a 7.1
percentage-point increase year-over-year (for an average endpoint OTP of 83 percent) while the
long-distance trains experienced a 6.6 percentage-point increase over the previous year (for an
average endpoint OTP of 78 percent). Further highlighting these fiscal year improvements,
compared to the previous year, all but two of Amtrak’s routes experienced an increase in
endpoint OTP and almost two-thirds have had endpoint OTP increases of ten percentage points
or greater.

Considerable momentum for improving Amtrak’s OTP was achieved in FY 2009 and notable
OTP improvements continue to be made across the Amtrak system in FY 2010. This momentum
can only be helped by further cooperation between Amtrak and the freight railroads, the
forthcoming publication and implementation of the PRIIA Section 207 Metrics and Standards,
and the implementation of recently selected State-sponsored investments under the FRA’s
ongoing High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.